International Socialists

James G.

Students have, throughout recent history, been a pillar of activism in the world. Whenever there is an issue at stake, Students have invariably taken part in protests, demonstrations, rallies and any other activist action you can think of. The reasons for this are many, however, there is a much more important problem today; student activism is dying off. Whereas in latter days thousands of students would march down streets, today a few hundred, even less, is considered a great success.

But why is this? Is it just because the youth of today are merely apathetic? A true generation Y? As in, why bother? We, as socialists do not believe this to be true, as with most things, the lack of student activism at the moment can be traced back to a simple fact or event that cause it. In this case, it is student debt. Recently, as I am sure most of you have read or know, student debt has skyrocketed to 10 billion dollars. Just to put it in perspective, and not the ‘you could buy this many beers with it’ perspective, the entirety of the countries credit card debt is only a little over 5 billion. In addition to this, the debt is increasing by 1 billion a year. This, logically means the cost of university is around 1 billion, not including the debt outside of student loans. When we look at the government’s budget, 1 billion could be easily spent by them; their surplus is many times that. However, before we can analyze why this debt causes a decrease in student activism, we must have a quick look at the history of university fees. Until 1989, fees for domestic students in New Zealand were very low. In 1989, the fee for full-time full-year study at a New Zealand university was less than $300. However, for most students, 90% of that cost was met by the government through a fees grant, which was paid through the student support system. Labour introduced the flat $1250 standard tertiary fee for full-time and full-year students in 1990. Phil Goff, currently a Labour Cabinet Minister and the then Associate Minister of Education, responsible for tertiary education, was responsible for introducing tertiary fees.

The incoming National Government abolished the $1250 flat tuition fee in the 1991 Budget, however allowed tertiary institutions to set their own fees without any government regulation. This was nothing more than a rank betrayal. It was allowing themselves to absolve the blame, and force the universities themselves to squeeze the students. Most institutions introduced their own flat tuition fee, however over time they introduced differentiated fees for different subject disciplines and levels of study. As we have for them today.

In the 1990s, fees rose by an average of 13% per year. The EFTS-based “bums on seats” funding model was also introduced in the 1991 Budget. As the rate of funding per student decreased, tertiary institutions sort to recover funding decreases by increasing their fee levels. In 2004, economists Scott & Scott reported that funding to universities per domestic equivalent full-time student (EFTS) fell by 34.76% (in 2002 prices) from $11,293 in 1980 to $7,367 in 2002. Between 1991 and 2002, EFTS funding fell by 73 percent of university total operating revenue to 42 percent. This is why student fees have gone up; a clever trick by the government to force universities to raise fees, while absolving themselves of the blame. Fees have continued to rise in recent years. Fee rises have been on the cards even more for most students following the government introducing the Fee and Course Costs Maxima (FCCM) Policy in the 2003 Budget. This effectively places an upper limit on fees. However, All this leads to is an increase in our fees, as these maxima fees are much higher than what our fees actually are, giving Universities the excuse to raise them.

Helen Clark said in November 1999, the month she was elected Prime Minister, that “tertiary fee rises are crippling our future”. She went onto state, “Labour is committed to first stabilizing and then lowering tertiary fees. We want to do that because Labour believes that nothing makes a greater contribution to the equality of opportunity than education.”

This was a lie. Pure and simple. Fees have not stabilized, they have risen. The quality of degrees has fallen, to a point where now you need postgraduate in most cases to use it as a qualification. Tertiary fee rises are still crippling our future, not only in terms of education, but also in terms of fostering learning and growth. The user pays system has hit hard at student activism, But this was not always so.

If we look back to the early 1990’s, when User pays was first introduced, there was huge protest against the move. Students were prompted to come out in huge numbers against the idea of user-pays. The number of protests, demos and rallies were huge, and well-attended. Numbers got easily into the thousands, and present day incentives, like sausages were not needed in the slightest. However, these days it takes fruit bursts and sausage sizzles to get people to come to even a charade of protests. Instead of actually protesting, we have a party! Now, while I might be sounding like some cantankerous old wannabe, nostalgic for the times when student activism meant something, what I am actually trying to point out is that even though the issues –have- -not- -changed-, student activism has declined dramatically.

But why is this? What does debt do to crush student activism into the proverbial picket ground? Firstly, we must analyze why students have been a centre of protest and activism in the past. Unlike most people in society, students in the past had little obligations, had little demands on them other than learning. Their purpose in university was to learn and grow in knowledge. User-Pays has changed this. First and foremost, it turns university into an investment; make its primary purpose getting a job in later life. You are discouraged from doing what you want, because everything has to get you a job. It has turned university into a ‘graduate factory’, churning out new employees for the system. This is not what university was, or should be about. It should be about expanding peoples knowledge, making them reach for new and different ideas. The user pays system has destroyed this.

In addition to this, there is the problem of normalization; it has been almost 20 years since the implementation of that first flat fee, and as a result, people have gotten used to it. Like reality TV, which ten years ago would probably have people rioting in the streets, yet is anticipated now, student debt is the norm. Not only this, but most countries around the world now have a user-pays system. All of this makes people feel like student debt is something logical, something that cannot be changed and is immutable. This is a sentiment we, as Marxists disagree with completely. It is the same argument that rises for almost any argument for oppression. Black civil rights, universal suffrage, almost any liberating action that has been accomplished has been accomplished because people did not give in to the idea that things are unchangeable.

Another, large and important dimension to the consequences of the current scheme is the idea of an allowance. Currently, your entitlement is calculated not on your own income if you are under 21, but on your parents. There are a large number of rules and regulations, and enough red tape to cover St. David’s. Just as an example, to get their full entitlement two friends of mine had to give the government all the emails they had sent to each other, to ‘prove’ that they where together. And at the end of the day, the most they can get is barely comparable to the dole. A recent article in the critic showed that if we worked for as long as we studied, at minimum wage, we would be making over 20,000 a year after tax. Even if this was, (As it probably was) a overestimation of how much time students put into study, this shows quite clearly how hard it is just for students to live. The famous noodle dinner is not a myth for many students, but a reality. They are forced to seek employment, usually at the lowest levels, just to have enough. When people are in this situation, activism is harmed. Though the anger and annoyance at the system is still there, a combination of belief that you cannot change it, and the pressure of just surviving adds up to a huge disincentive to be active.

So, now that I’ve made you all depressed and disenchanted with ever seeing another student protest, here’s the lighter side; this is not set in stone. Its more set in butter. We can change things, we can get a student protest movement going again. The obvious stepping stone, at least in my opinion is to make the first of the new big protests against student debt. We need to demand from our government a few simple things; a universal allowance, so that all students can focus on learning instead of where the next meal is coming from; lowering and eventual abolishment of student fees; a phasing-out of the student loan scheme, and reintroduce the student GRANT scheme. What this requires is a group to help, ahem, egg this along. Thankfully, we have such a group, just recently set up. While it is customary during these talks to encourage you to join the ISO, I feel it is more fitting to advertise the Education Action Group. This group is committed to the previously stated aims, but it needs more members. Members I hope I have convinced to join today. Thank you.